Central Information Commission
Paramjit Singh vs Delhi Police on 6 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/105141
Shri Paramjit Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, West District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of Decision : 01.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.11.2023
PIO replied on : 07.12.2023
First Appeal filed on : 13.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 10.01.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.11.2023 seeking information on following points about Complaint No. 74, dated 04.01.2023, regarding ban of loudspeakers being used by Hawkers:-
"1. What is the present status of complaint.
2. Who is the Investigation Officer in this case (Kindly furnish his Name, designation and Mobile number etc.
3. Since more than 10 months have elapsed, what action has been taken against hawkers who are using loudspeaker for selling their goods and for showing their presence.
4. How many hawkers have been apprehended by the Police Authorities who were using loudspeakers.
5. What action was taken on the hawkers who were apprehended by police for using loudspeakers.
6. If no action has since been taken, reasons thereof."
The PIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi vide letter dated 07.12.2023 received from SHO/Tilak Nagar replied as under:-
1. "Complaint was filed on 10.02.2023.
2. HC Roshan Saini, Mobile No. 9015642828.
3. Complaint was filed on 10.02.2023. Copy of enquiry report is attached.
4. No. Page 1 of 3
5. N/A in view of Point No. 4.
6. The requisite information is in fact a query in nature and does not fall under the category of information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005.
7. No."
The report dated 10.02.2023 of the SHO/Tilak Nagar enclosed concludes as under:
In this regard, it is submitted that on perusal of complaint, it has found that there is no specific place is mentioned where the alleged activities are taken place. Moreover, no other complaints have been received from the area residents either in written or in public meetings. Patrolling staff is deployed round the clock in the area and they have been briefed to keep vigil on such activities and take legal action if such kind of violation is noticed by them. No further action is required at this stage, hence the complaint may be filed please.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 10.01.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO. The Appellant filed another letter to the FAA requesting to deliver detailed orders justifying the reply/rejoinder raised in the Appeal. The FAA responded vide letter dated 12.02.2024 stating that there is no provision to file another request/re- joinder once the 1st appeal is decided, under RTI Act-2005.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written synopsis dated 23.04.2025 has been received from the Appellant requesting to direct the 1st Appellate Authority to take appropriate action against the hawkers who are using loud speakers in the area with immediate effect.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri S S Rathee - ACP, Tilak Nagar and HC Yogesh - RTI Cell, West were present during hearing.
The Appellant stated over telephone that he has submitted written synopsis and wants that the case be decided on the basis of records. The Respondent placed reliance on the enquiry report dated 10.02.2023 of the SHO/Tilak Nagar and stated that action which could be taken in terms of law, has been taken on the Appellant's complaint. The Appellant has been duly informed of the action taken. There is no further course of action which can be taken in this case.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that action which could be taken on the Appellant's complaint has been duly taken and information in this regard from available records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The primary cause of action which gave rise to the instant case has been resolved. In so far as the Appellant's grievances are concerned, the same does not fall within the scope of the Page 2 of 3 RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)